SAVING MR. BANKS is a corporate, borderline-sexist spoonful of lies — Page 2

Yeah, it's box office potential is pretty surprising. It's a Disney film that also is a Hollywood does Hollywood that deals with the creative process that has had a bit of a moment in the last few years. I think it being in a crowded December field is doing it no favors. The Blind Side made mint and was an autumn release. Consider how stale the November slate was, it easily could've been a Thanksgiving film. Not like it interfered with Thor 2's business.

As for its score on the Tomato-meter. I'd look into Metacritic's compilation of Top Ten list of the year and its score on that site (66%) than RT that scores tend to be polar than weighted. It's better than what The Help and The Blind Side did but those were very commercial, populist hits. For its awards prospects I just see Thompson, who is beloved by the Academy, and the script (not because of it being among the best but Marcel's script being a story in of itself can endear itself to a nomination- like the script for Flight being nominated last year because of the writer's own personal story).

I just got back from a packed theater seeing this and honestly, I just loved it. I sobbed my eyes out and had my heartstrings relentlessly tugged and I couldn't have been happier.

It's done okay in the UK, think the fact that Disney opened Frozen only a week later meant that it didn't get marketed well, it should really have been saved for January.

The film itself is pretty wonderful, I'm surprised that this is a Disney film that actually pokes fun at the company with Disneyland being referred as a Dollar printing machine by Travers. Walt is portrayed quite fairly as is Travers, the flashbacks are effective and help to explains why Travers is the way she is and how it influences the creation of Mary Poppins.

While we don't see Walt smoke a cigarette, its not completely whitewashed as he does have a smoker's cough and also have a scene with him stubbing a cigarette.

Aside from Hanks and Thompson, I quite liked Paul Giamatti in his small role as her chaffeur and also BJ Novak and Jason Schwartzman as the Sherman brothers.

Updated On: 12/14/13 at 09:22 PM

I loved it. It may be historically inaccurate, and I'd like to say "who cares?" but given some of the responses here there are people who do. But for me, personally, I didn't care. Taking it for what it is, an old-fashioned, entertaining, well-crafted, well acted MOVIE, and not for what it is not, I was thoroughly charmed and entertained. And, like Jordan, I cried through more than a third of it and couldn't have been happier.

Being one of those kids for whom MARY POPPINS was originally made, it certainly opened a floodgate of memories; probably no other movie dominated my early childhood as much as "Mary Poppins" did, and it remains one of my favorite films.

---

Updated On: 12/16/13 at 05:55 PM

Was there this as much backlash on BWW when Finding Neverland opened?

Just got back, my theater had a decent crowd for a Monday night. I also adored every second of the movie. This may have already been discussed, so I apologize, but was Ralph really her driver during this time or was he created to make us like her a bit more? Either way, it definitely worked for me!

---

It would never happen, but I've always wondered if a movie would be made about the Mouseketeers. Nobody has ever adapted Paul Petersen's book.

---

Removing cigarettes from "I Love Lucy" would be nearly impossible without completely destroying it. The show was sponsored by a cigarette company. Many of the scenes include smoking because it was "the thing" that people did then. Instantly I can see tons of staged jokes that directly used cigarettes as well as moments it was casually a part of the plot.

As for the MPAA rating association - I know we've discussed them at length and how stupid their ratings are specifically because of the conservative members who run that organization.

Looking forward to seeing Saving Mr. Banks. Glad to hear everyone is enjoying it.

"and cigarette ads were plastered all over those broadcasts, advocating their health benefits."

I love those old ads. It was a completely different time.

---

Besty, the sale of tobacco actually more than tripled between 1890 and 1903. Perhaps the social stigma was there but the numbers tell a different story.

Besty, the sale of tobacco actually more than tripled between 1890 and 1903. Perhaps the social stigma was there but the numbers tell a different story.

I never said people weren't smoking or buying tobacco, only that people were already considering it and promoting it as "bad," including outlawing it in some states.

... which of course is probably exactly why sales tripled.

---

"So it went full circle, from being "bad for you" to "good for you" to "bad for you" again. The politics of health."

I've read that blamed not just on the advertising, but on the fact that when movies really became big, and then the early days of TV, smoking gained even more of a glamorous image. But I obviously can't verify that... :P